|
A couple things...
Firstly, as for the disposition of the animal. Once it became the animal companion of the Ranger, then it's the ranger's class feature. If the monkey was not going to go along with what the ranger was planning, then it should have been refused in the first place (and the ranger find a different AC).
Eh.
He gave an exception to the animal companion rules based on the fact that the monkey had an existing role in the party.
If the player decides he doesn't want "That Specific Monkey" then he can move on and take another animal companion that follows all the normal rules of animal companions.
|
|
A couple things...
Firstly, as for the disposition of the animal. Once it became the animal companion of the Ranger, then it's the ranger's class feature. If the monkey was not going to go along with what the ranger was planning, then it should have been refused in the first place (and the ranger find a different AC).
Eh.
If you want to talk about class features and specific rules then the ranger can't even take the monkey companion. He gave an exception to the animal companion rules based on the fact that the monkey had an existing role in the party.
If the player decides he doesn't want "That Specific Monkey" then he can move on and take another animal companion that follows all the normal rules of animal companions.
Well, here is the thing. Now that the monkey is intelligent, and was really based around making people laugh, I think he may not like being a human hunter. Is it appropriate for an animal companion with intelligence to defy his master. Handle Animal wont work, though diplomacy might keep him friendly. Still, I cant see him liking what the ranger is asking him to do. What happens if the monkey doesn't want to be an animal companion, now that he is smart enough to make decisions? Thoughts?
Maybe the monkey is clever enough to defy the ranger without disobeying him. Have the monkey shoot arrows, but intentionally miss human targets, and always prefer inanimate targets (candles, ropes holding things up or together, the evil wizard's favorite pointy hat, etc.)
That way, the monkey can still contribute as an archer; he's just going to do so in his own way. The player might be disappointed at first when he sees that extra d6 damage go away. After the monkey shoots a wasp nest over the enemy position and they all leave cover to escape the swarm ... that's a story he'll tell his friends.
|
While I don't like the idea of making a ranger's AC less useful just because he's your NPC baby, if you really must, here's how I'd do it.
Take the player aside, and tell him that monkey gets a circumstance bonus to his rolls when he's doing something he likes to do, like an extra +2 for a dirty trick maneuver, or a non-lethal attack. Or give him improved dirty trick as a bonus feat. Something to ENCOURAGE without waving your hand and saying that the ranger's companion refuses to perform how he should, by RAW, perform.
If you want to talk about class features and specific rules then the ranger can't even take the monkey companion. He gave an exception to the animal companion rules based on the fact that the monkey had an existing role in the party.
If the player decides he doesn't want "That Specific Monkey" then he can move on and take another animal companion that follows all the normal rules of animal companions.
Oh yes, indeed. I did end my post saying that it's really up to the GM at this point, but what I was writing was more of a RAW standpoint.
The GM here broke one rule (allowing the monkey as an AC), but was asking about our feelings on breaking another rule (following the ranger's orders or not).
From the standpoint of how the rules work, it feels like an unnecessary point of contention for the GM.
It is also, possibly, how the player thinks of this situation as well. As the ranger giving sentience to this monkey, he feels he should control how it acts with that sentience.
As a GM, if I've handed over a character (via Animal Companion or Leadership feat, etc) I tend to let the player have control of the "fate" of that creature. Sure, I might step in when it's most appropriate (or if they go too far), but I'd have sooner reservations of a bow wielding monkey because it's an awkward attack method for such an animal rather than because the monkey had a personality.
Once again though, that's just my opinion on this matter.
|
I tend to agree with kaisoku. If the dm wasn't planning on allowing the monkey to be useful in combat, then he shouldn't have let the player take the monkey as an animal companion. By going down this route, all he is doing is wasting the player's and the party's time.
Wasting thier time? We are playing a roleplaying game. If you think roleplaying is wasting time, well...
Also, talking up the personality of a pet monkey with low intelligence seems rather suspect.
Now I am suspect AND wasting their time. I must be out to get the players with my conspiracy of a comical monkey. Oh how they will scream in agony...
I personally do not understand why any of this is going down. Why is the party's time being wasted here? Either you are going to allow the monkey to be an animal companion( and thus have it be functional in combat) or you are going to make it be a non-combat npc. To make half decisions does not help the game for the dm or the players. If things are going to go this way, I say rescind your decision and allow him to instantly re-pick his animal companion.
From what you say, I have a feeling you would not like any of my games or actions, what with me wasting you time with roleplaying and conspiring to make you useless. Here I thought I was adding some fun and creating an unusual situation that the players will have to deal with. Well, Thank you for your reply, You have shown me just how much weight your words are worth.
|
|
The GM here broke one rule (allowing the monkey as an AC), but was asking about our feelings on breaking another rule (following the ranger's orders or not).
From the standpoint of how the rules work, it feels like an unnecessary point of contention for the GM.
This is the reason of my post. I didn't think the rules were real clear on whether making the animal an AC DID automatically change them to be more in line with thier master. Also if the high intelligence would factor in there as well.
Most people seem to feel that the animal would still retain its shown nature, and not just instantly adjust itself to its new master, though some people don't and that is ok too.
Personally I am going to go with the monkey refusing. I think it will add some fun opportunities to have him there shaking his head with his arms crossed while the ranger tries to get him to use his new bow and arrow. Most of my party will love it. The only one who may not, is the ranger, but that is more because he is my problem player (one in every group) who will ALWAYS go against the wishes of the rest of the characters and is never happy with any decision. (he watches to much teen angst drama on TV and thinks that roleplaying = causing interpersonal relationship problems. Think supernatural, where even though they're brothers they always fight about something inane every episode ). He will get over it quick though if it even bothers him.
Thank you (mostly) everyone for your opinions.
Ah, the internet... where we all talk in hyperbole. If something is a little off-putting, then we write that it would cause the end of a friendship!
I think the idea of putting a fun monkey NPC into the game was awesome. On the flipside, I'd probably let the Ranger make his pet NPC monkey into whatever he wanted too (I like letting my players have as much power over their characters as they can, I "have" to control everything else already).
However, if I felt that this was affecting how the monkey was acting, I might also change the personality of the guy when roleplaying. After he starts killing people, his attitudes get a little less funny/playful, and a little bit more sadistic.
Maybe a case of "be careful what you wish for"? I wouldn't go overboard with it, but if, as GM, I felt that the monkey's attitudes were dependent on not being a murderer, then I'd tweak his new attitudes to reflect that.
Oh also, as the blog link puts it, the bow action is entirely within the GM call to refuse to begin with.
Though there's plenty of other attack methods that better mimic a monkey's natural activities. Like throwing weapons (fling poo!) or a blowgun (spitting!).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, the internet... where we all talk in hyperbole. If something is a little off-putting, then we write that it would cause the end of a friendship!
I think the idea of putting a fun monkey NPC into the game was awesome. On the flipside, I'd probably let the Ranger make his pet NPC monkey into whatever he wanted too (I like letting my players have as much power over their characters as they can, I "have" to control everything else already).
However, if I felt that this was affecting how the monkey was acting, I might also change the personality of the guy when roleplaying. After he starts killing people, his attitudes get a little less funny/playful, and a little bit more sadistic.
Maybe a case of "be careful what you wish for"? I wouldn't go overboard with it, but if, as GM, I felt that the monkey's attitudes were dependent on not being a murderer, then I'd tweak his new attitudes to reflect that.
If he wants to choose something else, I will certainly let him. I like this idea too though.. If he keep him and continues to work at it, maybe the monkey will start to like killing. hmm.. imagine going into your tent at night to find a severed hand, with no idea who it is from, with your AC grinning.
I like this idea too though.. If he keep him and continues to work at it, maybe the monkey will start to like killing. hmm.. imagine going into your tent at night to find a severed hand, with no idea who it is from, with your AC grinning.
I don't like saying "No" to players (especially when it comes to their class features, etc), but that doesn't mean I can't take things to a logical conclusion that might differ from their expectations.
I feel it gets my point across better than outright denial too. In your case, they might think twice about taking on a fun-loving cohort and turning them into a murderer. ;)
*Edit* Note, too, that if they dump the monkey as an Animal Companion after that, the Int bonus would go away (back to normal monkey) and it would be appropriate to change the personality back to normal too.
Then again, they might like having a murderous monkey on hand anyways... players can be weird that way (myself included).
|
|
I like this idea too though.. If he keep him and continues to work at it, maybe the monkey will start to like killing. hmm.. imagine going into your tent at night to find a severed hand, with no idea who it is from, with your AC grinning.
I don't like saying "No" to players (especially when it comes to their class features, etc), but that doesn't mean I can't take things to a logical conclusion that might differ from their expectations.
I feel it gets my point across better than outright denial too. In your case, they might think twice about taking on a fun-loving cohort and turning them into a murderer. ;)
Wow, now that I am thinking more about this, I might just skip the whole refusal and work right into psycho monkey. That may be even more fun. It will horrify the other PCs, LOL. Thanks for the idea.
|
|
hmmm. I suspect what you call roleplaying opportunities are just railroading opportunities. Do 10-20% of the swords your players find have hidden defects in them so that they break in the middle of combats? When your wizards summon things, do every few of them have similar morality issues and ignore commands? Otherwise, it looks like you are just targeting your "problem player". This is evident in the fact that the only kind of animal companion you are willing to let this monkey be is either
1. a monkey that won't fight. For ethical reasons.
2. a monkey that will turn into a psychotic killer. Because his apparent ethical reasons no longer matter.(sounds very consistent to me)In both scenarios, you are really pushing this monkey's level of higher thought way beyond its intelligence score. A monkey with 3 or 4 int is not going to be having this level of thought. It will comprehend it has a master and it will want to please that master. It may go about doing that in amusing ways. It will not be arguing philosophy. Furthermore, you have not once talked about the possibility of the players having a role to play in how the monkey turns out. Apparently no matter what they do, they get a problematic class feature. Which is why it appears that you just want to give someone trouble and call it an opportunity for roleplaying.
Makes me wonder if you are this player's problem dm.
You are free to wonder all you like.
With an Int of 2 or less, a monkey does not have the intelligence needed to make moral choices. He could be trained to attack, defend, and so forth during this time without a problem. Ever see an animal who's loving, funny, and goofy, but would tear the face off of an intruder sneaking into their house? It's not either/or here.
Secondly, I'm unsure as to the thing about Handle Animal not working on Int 3 companions. Normally I'd say you're entirely right, but the Devs kind of screwed that up a while back when they said you still have to use Handle Animal to direct your animal in combat even if they have a 3+ Int; but then again the devs have been wrong about the game before.
Interestingly, for some reason they also made it so that 3 Int is sentient enough to have a language, have a moral alignment, not be trainable via Handle Animal, and cannot be influenced via Diplomacy (I'm not sure why, honestly). Int 3 is kind of a dead-zone in interaction for some reason (probably an oversight). This is somewhat meaningless however.
Personally, if you don't plan to let the Ranger have him as an animal companion - I mean for real have him - then you should just tell the ranger that he can't, instead of toying with him. Tell him that he's your NPC and you won't let him function as an animal companion should (you normally get to pick your animal companion's tricks, feats, and direct them as desired). I think being honest with the player would be for the best.
Personally I see no harm in having a funny monkey who functions as comic relief but can step up and be a little hero-monkey because he's the hero's sidekick. I mean, Aang had Momo, Adam West Batman had Robin. All in the same idea of a low-Int animal companion, right?
EDIT: Heck, Adam West Batman apparently trained his Robin to say "Holy" before everything. Kind of like how Darth Revan programmed his droid to call organic creatures "Meatbag". ^-^
Also, talking up the personality of a pet monkey with low intelligence seems rather suspect.Now I am suspect AND wasting their time. I must be out to get the players with my conspiracy of a comical monkey. Oh how they will scream in agony...
I've been there before. I once decided to throw in a talking raven NPC "just for fun" and to see where it goes. Well, as soon as the players heard me describe this: "WIZARD'S FAMILIAR!!!1"
I had no plan to use the raven as anything more than its own creature, but this did help me to realize that even random elements will be interpreted as meaning something by the players. The players are absolutely scouring the game for hidden patterns. It made me think that maybe I should have some of these interesting bits planned out, rather than just randomly throwing them in and having them mean nothing.
I realize that sometimes a red herring is good, but I don't want my campaign to be red herring soup. I'm not even particularly fond of herring. Wait, can a herring be an animal companion?
The GM here broke one rule (allowing the monkey as an AC), but was asking about our feelings on breaking another rule (following the ranger's orders or not).
From the standpoint of how the rules work, it feels like an unnecessary point of contention for the GM.
This is the reason of my post. I didn't think the rules were real clear on whether making the animal an AC DID automatically change them to be more in line with thier master. Also if the high intelligence would factor in there as well.
Most people seem to feel that the animal would still retain its shown nature, and not just instantly adjust itself to its new master, though some people don't and that is ok too.
Personally I am going to go with the monkey refusing. I think it will add some fun opportunities to have him there shaking his head with his arms crossed while the ranger tries to get him to use his new bow and arrow. Most of my party will love it. The only one who may not, is the ranger, but that is more because he is my problem player (one in every group) who will ALWAYS go against the wishes of the rest of the characters and is never happy with any decision. (he watches to much teen angst drama on TV and thinks that roleplaying = causing interpersonal relationship problems. Think supernatural, where even though they're brothers they always fight about something inane every episode ). He will get over it quick though if it even bothers him.
Thank you (mostly) everyone for your opinions.
I dunno. It sounds like you are just screwing with your player because you don't like him having an animal companion. I personally think that players are entitled to make their characters and run their characters with the expectation that their class features actually work, and won't suddenly get f&++ed with just because the DM thinks it would be funny.
If you truly want to open some roleplaying opportunities, why not put in moral dilemmas that the player-characters have to work through. Like what happens when one has to choose between saving a loved one, and saving a stranger. Or what happens when you choose to help a town, only to discover that the town was unworthy of being helped.
There's a whole world of roleplaying opportunities out there. F@*!ing with players because you think it's fun rarely ends well, and in the end your players will end up distrusting and resenting you. Being a DM is about trust. The players are investing time into a game because they trust you. If they don't trust you to provide a good play experience for them, then eventually they won't want you to DM for them.
|
|
This is the reason of my post. I didn't think the rules were real clear on whether making the animal an AC DID automatically change them to be more in line with thier master. Also if the high intelligence would factor in there as well.The GM here broke one rule (allowing the monkey as an AC), but was asking about our feelings on breaking another rule (following the ranger's orders or not).
From the standpoint of how the rules work, it feels like an unnecessary point of contention for the GM.
This is more on the role playing side, the rules don't really cover this well. You know your group best. Do what's fun.
|
|
It still just seems like you're denying the ranger his class ability. You said "Yes, you can have this NPC as your animal companion." From now on, he is a class feature of the ranger. Yes, he can have a personality, but when it comes time to fight, he had better do his job. Whether that's a bite attack at 1d4, or a slam, or if you let him use a little tiny-sized spear or x-bow, that's what he is now supposed to do.
This is all next to the fact that a tiny-sized animal companion is not really a useful-for-combat animal companion. Did you bother to discuss that with your player?
|
|
I dunno. It sounds like you are just screwing with your player because you don't like him having an animal companion. I personally think that players are entitled to make their characters and run their characters with the expectation that their class features actually work, and won't suddenly get f@~%ed with just because the DM thinks it would be funny.
If you truly want to open some roleplaying opportunities, why not put in moral dilemmas that the player-characters have to work...
Yeah, telling him he could have a special animal companion outside the rules is screwing him over. Particularly leaving the option to grab any normally legal companion whenever he wants, what a jerk.
But thats not what has happened here Puregamer.
The player decided to take an oddball choice not allowed in the rules, obviously attracted by the RP aspect. The GM, not wanting to be an uptight RAW administrator allowed the player to choose this SUB-PAR animal, and props to him, as personally I'd have been VERY iffy about it (99% No).
Now after that the player decides to make the comic relief animal into some oddly tuned kill-bot, and continue on to use MORE rules NOT allowed by RAW to do so.
No one is in the 'wrong' here, but frankly the player is asking to continually break rules, and the GM is simply uncomfortable with this and putting a bit of a stop to the trend before it gets out of hand.
I reckon either the player accepts that their SUB-PAR choice should be played in the nature (and good will) in which it was intended, OR choose a different RAW solution more in keeping with what he wants. The monkey IS INDEED functional, but from a power standpoint it was always going to be a WEAK choice (and the players choice), and that can't be papered over.
It's like asking the GM if you can buy a broken down old beater and then seem surprised when it can't and won't go well at NASCAR.
|
|
He should have just been honest up front with the player and said, sure I will let you pretend the monkey is your animal companion but this is no way means that I will let you use this monkey as a functional animal companion. Several sessions could go by before the player realizes that the dm is just messing with him and then the player will actually make the choice fully informed(whether to get a functional animal companion or stick with one that doesn't work or is becoming a serial killer).Yeah, telling him he could have a special animal companion outside the rules is screwing him over. Particularly leaving the option to grab any normally legal companion whenever he wants, what a jerk.I dunno. It sounds like you are just screwing with your player because you don't like him having an animal companion. I personally think that players are entitled to make their characters and run their characters with the expectation that their class features actually work, and won't suddenly get f@~%ed with just because the DM thinks it would be funny.
If you truly want to open some roleplaying opportunities, why not put in moral dilemmas that the player-characters have to work...
Agreed. I feel that being upfront with your player would have made this a non-issue.
Either you have a big enough problem with your pet NPC monkey fighting, and he shouldn't become an animal companion, or you should let the ranger influence his new companion's behaviour, just as he would influence a wolf, tiger, etc. that he tamed. (That is, being controllable)
Another alternative is you just want to screw with your 'problem player'.
It's like asking the GM if you can buy a broken down old beater and then seem surprised when it can't and won't go well at NASCAR.
Unless your using a class feature that lets your make cars do more than factory capable and by the rules that beater should now be the ubercar.
Unless your using a class feature that lets your make cars do more than factory capable and by the rules that beater should now be the ubercar.
Sure, but its a bit "Herbie goes to NASCAR" which is cool if you are maintianing some sense of comedy, but not so much when you expect it to be taken terribly seriously.
The Monkey can't use a bow, so the players concept is scotched from the get go. It's too small to really engage melee, and really makes a terrible choice as a combatant, no matter how hard they try building it up. Keep it as comic relief, abandon it as a 'solid concept'.
I think the accusations of the GM being a timewaster in any way shape or fom are more than a little unkind, I reckon if anything I'd just accuse him of being a bit TOO lenient and reasonable, and not prefacing that flexibility with some clear caveats - but then thats with hindsight, not too many people would have assumed the Player was going to try hardcore cheesemonkey the choice afterwards.
|
Um, the OP is worried the ranger is going to corrupt his NPC. Simply have the ranger reread the rules book, and he may decide the cool idea of a bow wielding monkey isn't going to work. A spider monkey is tiny. Give him the monkey familiar stats as his base.
The ranger just made fourth level. Taking an animal companion, the companion is 1st level. When the ranger is fifth, taking the Boon Companion feat (if it is available) will improve the monkey, but not now. Therefore it is INT 2. Without the Boon Companion, the ranger is waitng until 7th level to realize his cool plan. The monkey needs to get to 4th to get the INT boost, then 5th before he can take his weapon feat. (He will likely get bored before then.) So, the monkey is a base monkey + 1 animal companion level until the character levels at least once.
Some time in the future, once the monkey reaches INT 3, and levels to take the martial weapon proficiency in bow, a tiny bow has to be specially crafted for him. That bow does 1d4 damage for the tiny size. A forth to fifth level animal companion has a +1 strength stat bump due to being a companion. That brings him up to a total of 4 STR. so it does 1d4-3 damage with the tiny bow. So, 25% chance to do 1 lethal damage, and 75% 1 non-lethal. At this point, it will look rather unappetizing and the ranger will choose another path on his own. Even a tiny crossbow at a flat d4 damage will look unappetizing.
The Paizo Devs recently did a big "clarification" that an INT 3 animal companion still requires handle animal checks to do things that it has not been trained to do. So, doing the standard attack/defend/guard stuff is a DC 10. Above and beyond, or something that it objects to, like danger is a DC 25. It is here that the monkey can assert its personality. The monkey already has an established quirk (Effective trait: Favored Pet, Human), and is not going to want to violate that. Therefore, attacking a dog or goblin is a DC 10 check, but attacking a human is a DC 25 handle animal check. And yes, the monkey considers the humans as his pets. Otherwise, he wouldn't play with them.
In other words, a) Many levels before the idea reaches fruition, B) Strength penalties on the tiny bow, and C) DC 25 handle animal checks if the monkey disagrees. The combination is enough that the ranger will decide to get a wolf instead, and the monkey will ride the wolf and remain the GM's comic relief.
Some time in the future, once the monkey reaches INT 3, and levels to take the martial weapon proficiency in bow, a tiny bow has to be specially crafted for him.
I think it can only use the bow to beat people around the head with, because it can't use weapons... :(
I do love the bit about the Monkey on the Wolf though - Hilarity ensues... :p
|
Now the ranger turned 4th level and want to take the monkey as an animal companion. Even though it is not on the list, the rest of the players say "let him do it" so I do.
Read the part I just quoted several times. I'm sure you'll figure out what you did wrong. Part of DMing is assuming your decisions.
Training the monkey to be combat capable in no way impinges on the monkey being goofy, comedic and lovable. One of Golarion's premiere good gods, after all, is a fun-loving, wisecracking fellow who is also sneaky and quite lethal.
Obviously, you know your players better than I do, but my impression is less 'I want a monkey animal companion so I can turn him into a bow-wielding assassin', so much as 'I really want this monkey as my animal companion, and these seem like skills I could teach him that would get mileage out of that.' Optimization, not powergaming. I could be wrong. But to me, bow-wielding monkey companion sounds really neat and is something I would want to encourage, as a general rule.
|
|
Maybe you could tell us what you would be okay with the monkey doing, as an animal companion who should contribute in a meaningful way in combat. Or at least contribute, if it can't be meaningful.
This is the conversation that should have taken place when the player said he wanted to take the monkey, or for that matter now.
And rather than trying to manipulate things in-game it is best done as a straight up player to GM conversation where the two come to a meeting of the minds about what exactly the role of the monkey can be. It's entirely possible the player will decide he doesn't like the constraints and opt for something else entirely.
Then again, maybe there is other out-of-combat stuff the monkey can do that might be cool/ fun enough to make it worthwhile.
I think part of the problem is that companion creatures are mostly focused towards being damage dealers in combat.
If there was an advancement option for having a utility companion (like a scout/troubleshooter/etc), then I'd use that.
As an alternative to the animal companion in this case, I would potentially have offered the player a mixture of leadership feat cohort + awakened animal instead of the standard animal companion rules.
The animal would have full mental stats, full sentience and morals (and actually be a true magical beast instead of animal), but then it could have class levels up to 2 lower than the player's level.
So a monkey with 2 rogue levels as your companion (at 4th ranger level). Other than unique sneak attack damage, it'd be fairly weak in combat. But with decent Int and a bunch of skillpoints per level, he'd have some decent utility.
*Edit*
Note that 4th ranger level is when his magical connections kick in. An awakened effect that is tied to the connection with the Ranger is not at all out of character for the class.
|
|
don't like him being a damage dealer?
- bump his Charisma to 15 and have him take the Flagbearer feat (lil' monkey bouncing around with a tiny little flag, giving everyone +1 to hit and damage for being such a cute mascot)
- give him the Bodyguard and In Harm's Way feats
- give him shield wall type feats or other teamwork feats to match the party member's other teamwork feats
etc. etc. etc.
|
|
Thanks to ogre and shifty and to those that get it. I am ignoring anyone that calls how I dm or treat my players into question. I don't take troll bait. It they wanted to comment on the question I (whether the bond would automatically change the monkey, or whether he would have free will to refuse) then there was plenty of opportunity for them to so. If they want to spend the time instead talking about how I DM, they can certainly do it among themselves. It just makes it easier to know who to put on my ignore list. Although they have shown me what a jerk I must be, for tricking him into taking the monkey on and than laughing as I make him useless. ha ha ha ha.... (evil laugh)
I will say that that the player knows, not only the personality of the monkey, beforehand, but also his combat ability. I am not going to sit down and discuss his decision with him, the same way I don't sit down with the party mage and go over what spells he is going to take. The ranger has been playing a long time, and knows how things work. He also has been playing with me for over ten years. I have screwed him and the other characters over many times, and usually they love it and come back for more. As long as there is a good story, and a fun time happening, my players do not care about things like making the most of their class skills. They like doing what is fun. They trust me, and trust that whatever is going to happen is going to be a good time. I feel bad for others that don't have that relationship, but then, maybe they should be looking at their own games, rather then trolling threads looking for people to insult, and they may find that.
Also, he can always drop the monkey and pick up something else, if he doesn't like where it going.
Even if the ranger does keep him, and finds a way to mold him into a sane, companion, he still is not going to be very helpful because of his size and limitations. I don't even think he has a good change to aid the player, as he needs to enter an opponent square to threaten, thus provoking an AoO. Though he will be a little effective vs humans, provided the ranger keeps bumping that FE.
I thought Noretoc was actually quite gracious, considering the amount of digs he had made at him accusing him of everything from being dishonest through to a big nasty bad guy doing over his players for the lulz.
It just smacked of 'GM bashing' to me.
Anyhow...
I liked your suggestion PDK of the flag bearer.
That, coupled with Dirty Tricks, steal etc, could make for some interesting game utility.
I too would like to see some 'alternate to DPS' builds where you could maybe build specialised AC's - Scouts for example. Then again take a bird with skill focus perception etc and you sort of end up that way anyhow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couple of thoughts:
First of all, you should absolutely let your player do this. One of the things players absolutely love in this kind of game is the ascended extra. Players love the idea that they can pluck a character out of obscurity and, along with them, it can become something cool and awesome (way more than the characters you try to make memorable). Just think about how and why the monkey became a part of the party in the first place. And, to be frank, the idea of a monkey archer is not only funny, but it contributes to the character without hurting anything. Just because it doesn't exist in the rules doesn't mean anything. Rules are suggestions, and any time breaking them makes your game funner or more interesting without making it less fair, you should do so. Do remember that this is a game you're putting on for other people, not a professionally published story. Some consistency can be sacrificed.
Second of all, where do you get the idea that a character who loves get attention and treats can't also shoot and stab things? We have an entire class devoted to both performance and combat. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, your player didn't request he become a cruel coldhearted killing machine, he requested that he use a bow in combat so he can help the character out. Plenty of characters in fiction have remained plucky long after shedding their first blood. Loot at Pippin from LOTR or Jubilee from X-men. Now, if the player wants the monkey to become monkey bandit or monkey torturer, I see your issue, and you're well within your rights to roleplay the monkey refusing to attack certain foes. But, frankly, I believe an intelligent monkey will shoot a bad man hurting his friends.
Thirdly, I'm going to echo some people's sentiment here, by saying you ought to have told your player the monkey wouldn't be a willing combatant when he chose him for an animal companion. My understanding of the situation is that the player was going to get an animal companion and, rather than choosing something badass like a great cat, he chose something that was already part of the game world. Not only does this show development on his part, but it's showing interest and involvement with your game. Then, he came up with a mildly creative way to use the creature as a combatant (which is what the AC is for) without changing the basic nature of the creature. What you should be doing is rewarding him for involvement in your game. I don't think you mean to do this, but when you say "well, tough, he should've thought of that when he picked the monkey" it feels like you're punishing your player. Now, if he took the monkey as some kind of powergaming (which I doubt), that's another issue, and I would take it up with him.
Lastly, some people in this thread have said some out-of-line things like calling you a 'problem dm' or assuming this is a control issue, which I assume isn't true. That said, you're being a little ungracious for somebody asking advice by saying people who don't agree with you "don't get it." I can assure you I get it, I just don't think your stance is the best thing for your game.
|
|
I thought Noretoc was actually quite gracious, considering the amount of digs he had made at him accusing him of everything from being dishonest through to a big nasty bad guy doing over his players for the lulz.
It just smacked of 'GM bashing' to me.
Anyhow...
I liked your suggestion PDK of the flag bearer.
That, coupled with Dirty Tricks, steal etc, could make for some interesting game utility.I too would like to see some 'alternate to DPS' builds where you could maybe build specialised AC's - Scouts for example. Then again take a bird with skill focus perception etc and you sort of end up that way anyhow.
I also liked the Flag bearing suggestion. I have played witha few ideas of other ways he can be useful, but haven't really dived in yet. If he manages to hang around, we will def explore them.
|
|
Couple of thoughts:
First of all, you should absolutely let your player do this. One of the things players absolutely love in this kind of game is the ascended extra. Players love the idea that they can pluck a character out of obscurity and, along with them, it can become something cool and awesome (way more than the characters you try to make memorable). Just think about how and why the monkey became a part of the party in the first place. And, to be frank, the idea of a monkey archer is not only funny, but it contributes to the character without hurting anything. Just because it doesn't exist in the rules doesn't mean anything. Rules are suggestions, and any time breaking them makes your game funner or more interesting without making it less fair, you should do so. Do remember that this is a game you're putting on for other people, not a professionally published story. Some consistency can be sacrificed.
I am not at all saying that he can't teach the monkey to shoot a bow, or use it effectively. It isn’t the act of using the bow, or the rules behind it that are an issue. It is the fact that the monkey does not want to use a bow or any other weapon to hurt people.
Second of all, where do you get the idea that a character who loves get attention and treats can't also shoot and stab things? We have an entire class devoted to both performance and combat. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, your player didn't request he become a cruel coldhearted killing machine, he requested that he use a bow in combat so he can help the character out. Plenty of characters in fiction have remained plucky long after shedding their first blood. Loot at Pippin from LOTR or Jubilee from X-men. Now, if the player wants the monkey to become monkey bandit or monkey torturer, I see your issue, and you're well within your rights to roleplay the monkey refusing to attack certain foes. But, frankly, I believe an intelligent monkey will shoot a bad man hurting his friends.
The personality of the monkey was already established. Are there other people who have no trouble with it, sure, but this particular dude does have a problem with it. The player may not be asking him to become a cold blooded killer, but, he is asking him to pick up a weapon and cause harm to other people. On top of that, he teaches him how to cause the most injury to humans (Favored Enemy). I could say that he is fine with that or I could say it will have some unexpected consequences. I went with the latter. I expect that my party will enjoy it more (I know they will, we have been playing a long time). Also, think about this. If you have an NPC that hates fighters. The fighter decided he wants to make her a cohort. Should you suddenly make that NPC like fighter, just so you don’t make the fighter’s feat less powerful?? I am sure some here will say yes, that I should twist the entire world to make every player happy but I don’t agree.
Thirdly, I'm going to echo some people's sentiment here, by saying you ought to have told your player the monkey wouldn't be a willing combatant when he chose him for an animal companion. My understanding of the situation is that the player was going to get an animal companion and, rather than choosing...
Again, this is not going to be a surprise. The monkey has shown he is not violent, and doesn’t like to hurt people. The player wants him anyway. He feels he can change him. (And he can, depending on what happens). Also if he doesn’t want to work with him, he can choose another. People are making a lot of assumptions about a player they do not know anything about.
Lastly, some people in this thread have said some out-of-line things like calling you a 'problem dm' or assuming this is a control issue, which I assume isn't true. That said, you're being a little ungracious for somebody asking advice by saying people who don't agree with you "don't get it." I can assure you I get it, I just don't think your stance is the best thing for your game.
Here is where you have it wrong. I did not ask for advice on how to make my player happy, nor how to get him an effective companion, nor whether I should just give in, etc. I came to get opinion on whether taking an animal companion will automatically change that companion's attitude. And if increasing his intelligence would have any effect on that. When people start telling me how to run other aspects of my game, or tell me how terrible i am, they DON’T get it. It has nothing to with what this thread is for. With all due respect for many out there, I have found by reading these threads that my game, and my DMing is vastly more enjoyable to the majority of experiences I read about here. When I read some of the issues on here, I thank the stars we have such a good dynamic. Now granted I don't know everyone who posts, and I would not want to make assumptions, but honestly this is the LAST place I would ever go to ask about how to DM a good game or interact with my players. While I know there are plenty of people that would give me GREAT feedback, I would never get to see their posts because either the thread would be filled with people who care more about argument bating than having a discussion, making it difficult to see the good posters, OR the good posters would just not post because they don't want to deal with the same people.
Sometimes though, I do like to get some other people's opinions, on some things, like rules interpretation or ideas, and so I try my best to ignore those who want to contribute crap, and take what I can from those who want to give real advice. Sometimes I get lucky, like in the beginning of this thread.
I am not at all saying that he can't teach the monkey to shoot a bow, or use it effectively. It isn’t the act of using the bow, or the rules behind it that are an issue. It is the fact that the monkey does not want to use a bow or any other weapon to hurt people.
All things considered, I think if the monkey's friends laughed every time he hit a human in a sensitive place, he'd be quite happy to play with his toy bow. Think the class clown, who keeps doing stupid things he knows he ought not to, just because he likes the laughs.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... It has nothing to with what this thread is for. With all due respect for many out there, I have found by reading these threads that my game, and my DMing is vastly more enjoyable to the majority of experiences I read about here. When I read some of the issues on here, I thank the stars we have such a good dynamic. Now granted I don't know everyone who posts, and I would not want to make assumptions, but honestly this is the LAST place I would ever go to ask about how to DM a good game or interact with my players. ...
This is sort of like sitting outside an auto-shop and seeing all the people come and go with their car problems and concluding you have the most reliable car on the planet. You are judging the typical experience based on the squeaky wheels of the gaming world. The horror story GMs and players get a disproportionate amount of exposure because ultimately the good GMs (and players) ask for less advice and make far less noise than the struggling (learning I hope) GMs and problem players.
There are a lot of great GMs on these forums, I honestly think there are more good GMs than bad. Natural selection helps. It's really tough to be a lousy GM and have a game group that sticks together for 10 years. I see a lot of 5-10 year GMs on these forums, they just don't tend to post as much as the squeaky wheels.
|
|
... It has nothing to with what this thread is for. With all due respect for many out there, I have found by reading these threads that my game, and my DMing is vastly more enjoyable to the majority of experiences I read about here. When I read some of the issues on here, I thank the stars we have such a good dynamic. Now granted I don't know everyone who posts, and I would not want to make assumptions, but honestly this is the LAST place I would ever go to ask about how to DM a good game or interact with my players. ...This is sort of like sitting outside an auto-shop and seeing all the people come and go with their car problems and concluding you have the most reliable car on the planet. You are judging the typical experience based on the squeaky wheels of the gaming world. The horror story GMs and players get a disproportionate amount of exposure because ultimately the good GMs (and players) ask for less advice and make far less noise than the struggling (learning I hope) GMs and problem players.
There are a lot of great GMs on these forums, I honestly think there are more good GMs than bad. Natural selection helps. It's really tough to be a lousy GM and have a game group that sticks together for 10 years. I see a lot of 5-10 year GMs on these forums, they just don't tend to post as much as the squeaky wheels.
Now why did you focus on that section, and ignore the rest of what I was saying in that paragraph. I never said there where not good DMs. I also said I would not make assumptions about the people who post and that my opinion was based on just the posts I read. I even stated that if I did ask for advice there are a lot of people that would give me great advice. All in the same paragraph you took that section fr
Also, I do want to say something about natural selection. I have found that many people who argue and give advice and tell you the best way to run a game on boards, don't even play regularly.
|
Having just gone through a change of animal companions with an Animal Domain Cleric player, I have a few ideas to offer:
1) Because the critter started as an NPC, I would probably have you as DM decide the animal's skills, feats, abilities and bonus tricks are at the ranger's current level. Everything else that follows hinges on that, more or less.
2) Given the description you provided, I would give the monkey skill ranks in Perform: Comedy
3) The companion only starts with a handful of tricks (the bonus ones), all others must be trained. I think it would be fair on your part to rule that the monkey could not start with any of the offensive tricks (attack, defend, down). This would require a time investment at a minimum for the ranger to add those tricks that are against the animal's natural tendencies.
To make the critter fun for the player, I would probably create a trick called distract whereby the monkey could use his perform skill to distract an enemy per Feint or cause an enemy to laugh using a mechanic similar to Intimidate: Demoralize but using the perform skill. If you were really generous, you could give the monkey Perform:Comedy as a class skill and add the Ranger's favoured enemy bonus to these checks. Balancing this wouldn't be too odious.
I'd lean towards bonus tricks like (Distract, above), Perform, Come, Heel or Stay; and make the ranger train the rest. If the Ranger is of a level to give 3 bonus tricks give it Come, Perform and Distract. If 2 bonus tricks, give Perform and Come.
4) Similarly, I would limit the monkey to non-offensive feats to start as well. If the Ranger wants to teach the monkey to shoot a bow, it'll take a level or two until the companion gains a new bonus feat.
I'd lean towards bonus feats like Skill focus: Perform, Dodge.
In the mean time, you can describe the ranger's efforts as frustrating as the monkey enjoys learning to use the bow and gets pretty good at it when shooting at targets but utterly refuses to actually use it effectively an combat. (The ranger could Push the monkey using Handle Animal but the monkey would be sullen about it and even if forced would be ineffective, i.e. the non-proficiency penalty).
Once the monkey gains a new feat, he comes around to the ranger's point of view by being convinced that the ranger's goals are good or by being browbeaten/forced to do something against his nature (depending on the ranger's approach/alignment).
5) Regarding raising intelligence above 2, I'd probably not allow it - i.e. if the critter gets an int of 3 of above, it becomes an NPC per Awaken.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Now why did you focus on that section
That's the section that popped out to me. Disregard my post then.
Also, I do want to say something about natural selection. I have found that many people who argue and give advice and tell you the best way to run a game on boards, don't even play regularly.
I couldn't say.
I do know people tend to post based on personal experience. People who have had trouble with 'bad' GMs in the past are more likely to accuse others of being bad GMs.